Teaching sex education in faith based British schools

[Rum]

This is both political and religious as an issue but as it is current, in N,CE and O it goes. All in the hope of convincing the earnest amongst noob arrivals that we canz be seriuz.

As some of you will know we still have so called 'faith based' schools in the UK. In fact about one third are Catholic, C of E or a smattering of others. Up until now it has not been compulsory to teach sex education - or certain bits, in all schools.

New legislation is being introduced which will make it compulsory for classes to be held which will cover issues such as sex before marriage, civil partnerships, abortion, contraception, alternative sexuality etc.

The Catholic Church lobbied very hard to get the legislation modified so that they could also express their own position on some of these matters. The end result will be for example - teaching about the existence of homosexuality, but finishing the lesson by saying that the church's position is that practising homosexuals will go to hell..

A 13th Century approach and a victory for the blind and deluded. More at:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8529595.stm

[Sisifo]

This is both political and religious as an issue but as it is current, in N,CE and O it goes. All in the hope of convincing the earnest amongst noob arrivals that we canz be seriuz.

As some of you will know we still have so called 'faith based' schools in the UK. In fact about one third are Catholic, C of E or a smattering of others. Up until now it has not been compulsory to teach sex education - or certain bits, in all schools.

New legislation is being introduced which will make it compulsory for classes to be held which will cover issues such as sex before marriage, civil partnerships, abortion, contraception, alternative sexuality etc.

The Catholic Church lobbied very hard to get the legislation modified so that they could also express their own position on some of these matters. The end result will be for example - teaching about the existence of homosexuality, but finishing the lesson by saying that the church's position is that practising homosexuals will go to hell..

A 13th Century approach and a victory for the blind and deluded. More at:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8529595.stm

I believe it is fair, Rum. The problem is allowing religious institutions managing education, but if you allow that, you cannot prevent them from expressing anything that doesn't constitute a crime. It's their home, and their beliefs are nobody's surprise. The only step beyond this would be to outlaw religious societies in education, and the public expression of faith.

[Rum]

This is both political and religious as an issue but as it is current, in N,CE and O it goes. All in the hope of convincing the earnest amongst noob arrivals that we canz be seriuz.

As some of you will know we still have so called 'faith based' schools in the UK. In fact about one third are Catholic, C of E or a smattering of others. Up until now it has not been compulsory to teach sex education - or certain bits, in all schools.

New legislation is being introduced which will make it compulsory for classes to be held which will cover issues such as sex before marriage, civil partnerships, abortion, contraception, alternative sexuality etc.

The Catholic Church lobbied very hard to get the legislation modified so that they could also express their own position on some of these matters. The end result will be for example - teaching about the existence of homosexuality, but finishing the lesson by saying that the church's position is that practising homosexuals will go to hell..

A 13th Century approach and a victory for the blind and deluded. More at:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8529595.stm

I believe it is fair, Rum. The problem is allowing religious institutions managing education, but if you allow that, you cannot prevent them from expressing anything that doesn't constitute a crime. It's their home, and their beliefs are nobody's surprise. The only step beyond this would be to outlaw religious societies in education, and the public expression of faith.

Well I think that is what they should do.

Faith based schools have been given the option of preaching their prejudice and superstitions to our children. Catholic kids are actively being told for example that the use of condoms is a sin, despite the fact that widespread use of them in Africa would help with the AIDS situation.

Religious freedom? Fuck that.

[Sisifo]

This is both political and religious as an issue but as it is current, in N,CE and O it goes. All in the hope of convincing the earnest amongst noob arrivals that we canz be seriuz.

As some of you will know we still have so called 'faith based' schools in the UK. In fact about one third are Catholic, C of E or a smattering of others. Up until now it has not been compulsory to teach sex education - or certain bits, in all schools.

New legislation is being introduced which will make it compulsory for classes to be held which will cover issues such as sex before marriage, civil partnerships, abortion, contraception, alternative sexuality etc.

The Catholic Church lobbied very hard to get the legislation modified so that they could also express their own position on some of these matters. The end result will be for example - teaching about the existence of homosexuality, but finishing the lesson by saying that the church's position is that practising homosexuals will go to hell..

A 13th Century approach and a victory for the blind and deluded. More at:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8529595.stm

I believe it is fair, Rum. The problem is allowing religious institutions managing education, but if you allow that, you cannot prevent them from expressing anything that doesn't constitute a crime. It's their home, and their beliefs are nobody's surprise. The only step beyond this would be to outlaw religious societies in education, and the public expression of faith.

Well I think that is what they should do.

Faith based schools have been given the option of preaching their prejudice and superstitions to our children. Catholic kids are actively being told for example that the use of condoms is a sin, despite the fact that widespread use of them in Africa would help with the AIDS situation.

Religious freedom? Fuck that.

Unless there are no alternatives to faith based schools so that parents who disagree must send their children to these schools, it is a parents' choice, wrong as it might be.
I agree with you, though, that any tentacle of religion should be cut from any public place or institution. But in private places? They must be able to howl to the moon if they want to.

[I'm With Stupid]

If we had to have a compromise, I'd rather have one that allows individual parents to take their kids out, rather than whole schools to teach bullshit as fact. Although I'm more concerned about what they don't teach than what they do. And let's not forget that a certain proportion of kids in these schools will be gay, and what we're essentially allowing is state-funded psychological bullying of those kids by preaching homosexuality as unnatural or sinning.

Wow, 41 posts and finally I've got onto something sensible.

[juːtoʊpiə]

If we had to have a compromise, I'd rather have one that allows individual parents to take their kids out, rather than whole schools to teach bullshit as fact.

Yeah, but the majority of parents with kids in these schools will to a greater or lesser extent share the school's view on these things. However, as soon as you mention compulsory sex education, well, you can see what they do right above. People go nuts (sadly not for doughnuts ). It's a bit of a lose-lose situation.

Unless, of course, people stop being idiots, which won't happen anytime soon.

[HomerJay]

I believe it is fair, Rum. The problem is allowing religious institutions managing education, but if you allow that, you cannot prevent them from expressing anything that doesn't constitute a crime. It's their home, and their beliefs are nobody's surprise. The only step beyond this would be to outlaw religious societies in education, and the public expression of faith.

The vast majority, 90%, of these state funded faith schools are Primary Schools and certainly in rural areas (where many are) there is no choice of school, without making primary school children travel long distances.
As they are state-funded the state can dictate the curriculum.

As the pupils may not have any faith themselves, it means that 30% of primary school children could be subjected to homophobic religious prescriptions even though they do not have a religious affliation.

Religions that are less well represented in the state sector, mainly Islam, will use this as a lever to create more muslim schools and this idiotic and gutless decision will provide them with more grist for their mill.

[I'm With Stupid]

Yeah, but the majority of parents with kids in these schools will to a greater or lesser extent share the school's view on these things.

I think this is a key point actually, because I don't think that's even slightly true. The vast majority of Catholics don't support the church's view on contraception, for example. And this is before we consider the huge number of people who claim a religion in order to get into a school, or for social rather than theological reasons, which I'm not convinced is a minority.

[juːtoʊpiə]

Yeah, but the majority of parents with kids in these schools will to a greater or lesser extent share the school's view on these things.

I think this is a key point actually, because I don't think that's even slightly true. The vast majority of Catholics don't support the church's view on contraception, for example. And this is before we consider the huge number of people who claim a religion in order to get into a school, or for social rather than theological reasons, which I'm not convinced is a minority.

I wasn't thinking so much about specific teachings, but more the general "sex is bad, 'mkay?" feeling which permeates their thinking.

[Peter Brown]

I still don’t understand the anti sex education stance by the churches. Seriously if you want to learn about sex as a teenager your local parish priest will have a few books on the subject to loan you. If the basic support to educate is there in the parish house why should schools be excluded from that subject?

The matter is clearly one of certain faiths demanding their brand of human relationships be the only way to exist in society.

I think a new governance of faith schools is in order with the basic guideline that every school must follow a national curriculum and the only difference a faith school has is how they manage their religious education slot.

[misanthropic_clown]

Having a fair few Christian friends I have had a couple of copies of the Christian Institute newsletter on the subject forwarded my way which made for almost laughable reading if it weren't such a serious issue (but not for the reason the Christian Institute has in mind). The biggest issue that seemed to be raised was the fact that same-sex civil partnerships would be required to be taught as on a par with traditional marriage. Oh noes indeed.

In my view, there is a tricky balance to play in the grander scheme of things. On the one hand, we have the desire to decrease homophobia by educating people about 'alternative' lifestyles to traditional marriage. On the other we have the issue of freedom of religion, which is by and large the root of homophobia (or at least the biggest justification) and will continue to be as such until the general religious climate becomes far more liberal. In the meantime it would be far too draconian for my tastes to try and ban the expression of the belief that homosexuality is sinful, except where such comments incite hatred or violence which is already covered in legislation.

However, ideally I do feel that state-funded schools shouldn't have to appease religious faith, particularly when we are talking about young and impressionable people and especially when a significant proportion may not share the faith and ethos of the school anyway. Surely if the people involved are so religious they feel the other side of the story needs to be told that can be done sufficiently well within the walls of their churches?

Of course, one of the major issues will be whether failing to appease religious groups will lead to them pulling out of schools, much as they did with adoption services. Perhaps that will be for the best in the long run, but I must admit I am ignorant as to the potential problems this may lead to.

[MrJonno]

My first post here as a RD refugee

There is a more fundamental problem here who is ultimately in charge of a kids education is the parent or society as whole?. It has already and (correctly ruled that) the state is the ultimate authority when it comes to health care through normally this is delegated to parents. If a parent wants to deny a kid medical treatment the state can intervene if it thinks its in the childs best interest.

So what is more important a parents right to teach anti gay bigotry or the right of a child to be brought up in an enviroment where being gay is normal?

Me personally I think its a tragedy if a child has the same values as their parents at 13 (at 50 its a different matter)

[misanthropic_clown]

My first post here as a RD refugee

There is a more fundamental problem here who is ultimately in charge of a kids education is the parent or society as whole?. It has already and (correctly ruled that) the state is the ultimate authority when it comes to health care through normally this is delegated to parents. If a parent wants to deny a kid medical treatment the state can intervene if it thinks its in the childs best interest.

So what is more important a parents right to teach anti gay bigotry or the right of a child to be brought up in an enviroment where being gay is normal?

Me personally I think its a tragedy if a child has the same values as their parents at 13 (at 50 its a different matter)

I don't even think this is particularly encroaching on parental autonomy with regards to education. In most respects that is the scale of the problem - regardless of how the schools handle sex education, parents and religious leaders have much more time on their hands to bring up their opinions (and misinformation) on these issues which will likely have a much bigger impact on the child's perspective than their school's offering on the matter, and they are free to do so. The best part of an hour a year (at best) from school is not going to counteract dozens of church meetings and discussions with church leaders and parents about the morality of sexuality. The best the state can do is ensure that the child has the opportunity to access and learn from complete and unbiased information on the topic which is what this legislation was intended to do before the faith-group lobbying allowed faith schools to pollute that information with their own religious spin.

That is the travesty here - the opportunity to ensure that every child got at least one opportunity for a clear and well informed sex education was missed in order to appease that very same group which has been confounding sex education from the beginning. Bigoted religious ideas about sexual morality are going to be passed on to another generation of children completely unchallenged.

[Matt H]

More cowardice from British MPs. Annoyingly, theyworkforyou.com doesn't have the breakdown of the votes so I can't see which way my MP voted, but seeing as she's a member of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, I think she'll have sided with Balls. Balls.

[misanthropic_clown]

More cowardice from British MPs. Annoyingly, theyworkforyou.com doesn't have the breakdown of the votes so I can't see which way my MP voted, but seeing as she's a member of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, I think she'll have sided with Balls. Balls.

The transcript is here, with a list of which way each member voted:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 2244000001

EDIT: That link seems to plonk you just below the list of votes, so you just need to scroll up from there to see the breakdown of votes.